Former Ohio State University Wrestlers Demand An Investigation Into Les Wexner

In one of the most high-profile federal trials in recent memory, Sean “Diddy” Combs was acquitted on two counts of sex trafficking after the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required under federal law. Prosecutors had attempted to portray Combs as the mastermind of a sprawling criminal enterprise, relying heavily on emotionally charged testimony, salacious details, and a sweeping RICO framework. But the defense dismantled the case piece by piece—pointing out inconsistencies in witness accounts, highlighting the absence of hard evidence, and emphasizing that even if Diddy’s behavior was morally questionable, it didn’t meet the strict legal definition of sex trafficking. The jury agreed, delivering not-guilty verdicts that underscored the government’s overreach and the defense’s calculated legal strategy.But while the criminal case is over, Diddy’s legal troubles are far from resolved. A wave of civil lawsuits remains active—each alleging abuse, coercion, and assault. In these proceedings, the burden of proof is lower, and the risks are different: discovery, depositions, and the public release of damning information. These cases threaten not just financial damage but reputational annihilation, especially in an industry that thrives on perception. As the walls of legal scrutiny continue to close in, the courtroom saga of Sean Combs is still very much unfolding—and we’ll be tracking every motion, every development, and every verdict until the final gavel falls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Juli 16min

In 2023, prosecutors assembled a highly detailed and damning body of evidence against Brian Walshe in support of the charge that he murdered his wife, Ana Walshe. The centerpiece of the case was a chilling series of internet searches conducted on his son’s iPad, including queries like “how to dispose of a body,” “how long before a body starts to smell,” “how to clean blood from a wooden floor,” and “dismemberment and best ways to dispose of a body.” These searches were conducted around the time Ana went missing and suggested not only forethought, but a deliberate attempt to plan and execute a cover-up. Brian Walshe initially told police that Ana had left early for a business trip, but his search history painted a vastly different picture—one of someone actively researching how to eliminate a human body just hours after his wife was last seen.Beyond the digital trail, the forensic and physical evidence added serious weight to the case. Trash bags recovered from a transfer station contained blood-stained items such as towels, rags, a Tyvek suit, rubber gloves, a hacksaw, a hatchet, and a necklace believed to belong to Ana. DNA testing confirmed the presence of both Ana’s and Brian’s DNA on multiple items. Surveillance footage captured a man resembling Walshe discarding trash bags into dumpsters, and cellphone data placed him near the locations where those items were dumped. Investigators also discovered blood in the basement of the family’s home, along with a damaged knife and cleaning supplies. A trip to Home Depot, where Brian purchased mops, buckets, tarps, and other cleaning materials shortly after Ana’s disappearance, further bolstered the prosecution’s theory of premeditated murder and attempted evidence destruction. Taken together, the evidence formed a coherent and devastating narrative that Ana Walshe was murdered in her home, dismembered, and disposed of in a calculated attempt to erase all traces of the crime.(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Brian Walshe: Prosecutors detail extensive evidence in killing of Ana Walshe. Here's what we know | CNNsource:Brian Walshe and the surprising conviction rate of 'no-body' murder cases (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Juli 33min

The media failed the Jeffrey Epstein survivors not just through omission, but through active complicity, sensationalism, and cowardice. For over a decade, major outlets tiptoed around Epstein’s connections to powerful elites—billionaires, royals, politicians—not because they lacked evidence, but because they feared legal retaliation and loss of access. The 2008 sweetheart deal Epstein received in Florida wasn’t just a failure of the justice system—it was aided and abetted by a media class that chose silence over scrutiny. ABC News infamously shelved Amy Robach’s 2015 interview with Virginia Giuffre, which contained explosive allegations implicating Prince Andrew and others. The reasoning wasn’t editorial—it was political and reputational preservation for those at the top. In that silence, Epstein’s victims were robbed of their voices, left to scream into a void while their abuser waltzed through high society.Even after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and suspicious death, coverage often pivoted to the lurid rather than the systemic: the island, the plane logs, the high-profile names were discussed in tabloid tones, stripped of the gravity that survivors' stories demanded. Few journalists interrogated the intelligence connections, the role of institutions like the FBI in ignoring leads, or the complicity of the financial and philanthropic worlds that kept Epstein viable. Survivors weren’t centered—they were background noise to a freakshow narrative. The media's reluctance to fully pursue the truth didn’t just protect Epstein’s enablers—it prolonged the suffering of his victims by signaling that their pain was less important than the reputations of the rich and powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753390385/a-dead-cat-a-lawyers-call-and-a-5-figure-donation-how-media-fell-short-on-epsteiBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Juli 46min

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Juli 10min

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Juli 11min

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state’s shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

4 Juli 12min

In advance of today’s hearing, the defense submits this letter in response to the Government’s November 18, 2024 letter (Dkt. 72). The defense asserts that the Government’s actions represent a severe and intentional breach of attorney-client privilege. The conduct has compromised the confidentiality of the defendant’s communications with counsel, exposing critical trial strategy, including plans for expert testimony, witness approaches, and other privileged matters.The defense argues that the Government’s actions are not only egregious but have caused significant harm to the integrity of the proceedings. By gaining access to the defendant’s privileged information, the Government has undermined the fairness of the trial, leaving the defense at a distinct disadvantage. This breach demands immediate scrutiny and rectification to ensure justice is upheld.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.75.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Juli 16min

In Document 308, both parties in the United States v. Combs trial submitted a joint letter to Judge Arun Subramanian addressing the voir dire process, following their earlier filings (ECF Nos. 272 and 274) containing proposed questions for prospective jurors. The letter outlines areas of agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning how potential jurors should be questioned during selection. This includes standard demographic questions, prior jury service, general attitudes toward law enforcement and the justice system, and the ability to remain impartial in a high-profile case involving serious allegations. Both parties also agree on using written juror questionnaires before oral voir dire and ensuring the anonymity of jurors throughout the proceedings.However, the letter also details several points of dispute between the parties regarding specific voir dire questions. These disagreements primarily center around how directly jurors should be asked about their knowledge of Combs’ past media controversies, opinions about the #MeToo movement, and whether jurors should be specifically questioned about their views on celebrity privilege or racial bias. The defense appears to want more targeted, probing questions to detect potential prosecutorial bias, while the government pushes back on what it sees as overly leading or prejudicial language. The letter asks Judge Subramanian to resolve these disputes before voir dire begins in earnest, underscoring how both teams are already deeply invested in shaping the jury long before opening statements are heard.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

3 Juli 12min